Aug 16 2008
The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight – The Far Right, Updated
The “true” conservatives, whose invectives against moderate and independent conservatives (e.g., RINOS, Quislings, etc) successfully handed Congress to the liberals in 2006, are again pointing their guns at the kind of non-fringe compromise which America wants on serious issues facing this nation. One of the big ‘failures’ in the eyes of The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight during President Bush’s first term was the Gang of 14, who helped avoid a zero-sum senate showdown over Bush’s judicial nominations and re-balanced this nation’s courts away from the liberal tilt that had our judicial system badly listing to port.
Now another Gang of moderates is BEGINNING the discussion on a balanced and comprehensive (a word the far right abhors) energy plan. I think the current proposal is too weak and doesn’t open up enough drilling opportunities, so I am not supporting the details. But I must note that the entire concept of bridging the aisles to help Americans cope with energy prices is THE answer America wants, no matter what the details are in this initial phase of the effort. Will this group produce perfection and Nirvana? Pullease. It is a legislative process, perfection never comes out of a legislative process.
But what is totally self destructive is the inane claims from the far right that a compromise starting position is wrong. To the contrary, the reason the Dems have been taking heat on energy is because they have been stubborn ideologues more interested in political wins than solving the problems. And into the mess comes the far right – doing the exact same thing!
LET’S DRILL THE GANG OF 10
…
Or, maybe not. Any guesses as to Mr. Udall’s other action this week? That’s right. He embraced the Gang of 10’s “compromise.” It wasn’t a huge sacrifice, since the proposal mostly limits drilling to a few coastal states, while spending $84 billion in subsidies primarily for the sort of “green” energy Mr. Udall favors. Meantime, he’s betting the “bipartisan” nature of that bill will provide him political protection against Mr. Schaffer’s attacks, while heading off more aggressive GOP drilling proposals in Congress this September.
Among the five Republican Senators in the Gang of 10 is John McCain’s close friend Lindsey Graham and, unbelievably, South Dakota’s solidly conservative John Thune.Â
This is ridiculous. These are beginning discussions. With the right pressure the limited drilling could be greatly expanded as the process moves forward. And we could also add in the building of nuclear power plants and oil refining capacity – two things much more important than a few more drill heads. This is the opening of debate, not capitulation and surrender. We on the conservative side want the liberals to be more open minded on Iraq and the war on terror, yet we cannot muster an ounce of respect for those on our side who do open their minds and discussions. The entire point of the article referenced is how the pressure on Democrats has them moving in our direction. Why risk this and more progress by denigrating the process?
What America is weary of is the inability of the parties to find reasoned compromise. What drives the GOP to the margins of history is their inability to respect good faith discussions and reasoned compromise. They have this knee-jerk annoying habit of looking down their nose at anyone who tries to solve problems. And it is why the Democrats are poised to win the elections this year despite their abysmal performance on all issues important to Americans.
Because in the end, rightly or wrongly, the Democrats are seen as respecting the average American. And given the tone of some on the right like Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Michelle Malkin and others it is a wonder the GOP is not in more trouble. Stop the war on reasonable discussion of options folks. Stop dividing America by setting purity tests for the left and right. It is the middle of the country that selects the path of the country. Insulting opportunity to solve problems is no way to win their support.
Update: Â I meant to add a link to my posts on the Gang of 14, so here it is!
Addendum: Reader Terrye notes all the good points in this starting position from which something could get passed and help Americans with energy prices:
I saw the following over at Instapundit a couple of days ago:
…
1. The “gang of 10″ bill unilaterally opens up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, with no state veto. The GOP bill didn’t do that, because Mel Martinez and Charlie Crist didn’t want it. Non-Gulf states Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas can opt-in if they like; the old GOP bill was opt-in everywhere, allowing Florida to block drilling in the Gulf off of its shores.
2. The bill also allows for seismic exploration along the entire continental shelf.
3. The ban on drilling within 50 miles of the coast was also in the GOP bill.
4. Contrary to many commentators’ claims, the “gang of ten†bill is not a lifeline for Obama: “What a bunch of C-R-A-P. †(Yes, he spelled it out like that) “If Obama embraced this, he would be the biggest flipflopper ever.†A lot of the opposition to the bill is really a case of trying to keep drilling as an election issue instead of getting more drilling.
5. The bill includes a Zubrin-like flex-fuel provision, requiring that 75% of cars by 2015 and 85% by 2020 be capable of running on something besides gasoline.
6. “Our bill also opens up coal-to-liquids. We couldn’t have gotten 44 Republicans for that.â€
7. The bill is “incredibly aggressive†on nuclear power, including accelerated-depreciation provisions like those for solar and wind power, more NRC resources to speed licensing, and an end to the Carter-era ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing. “We couldn’t have gotten 44 Republicans on this.â€
As I read the comments from the right on this post I am reminded of how there are infinite reasons not to act, but leaders take a chance and act with a plan to win as much as possible. The GOP lost the capacity to act years ago, and instead hides behind smarmy comments and faux perfection of policy. It might seem brave, but it really is not. With a Democrat run Congress there is definitely a strong possibility there will be concessions on some items – but the GOP gave up the opportunity to lead the debate when they let the Democrats win.
Fear of some Democrat successes in the package is not a reason to not act. It is not a reason to slam fellow conservatives willing to take a risk and see what can be done for America. What this boils down to is a fear to act covered up by excuses and alibis. Sorry, I am not impressed with all the handwringing and predictions of doom. And to try and cover up this fear to act by insulting others just compounds the sin.Â
America needs an energy policy, not a lot of partisan strutting and cackling.
So AJ, to get some oil, some tiny, winsy little bit of oil, we need to open the SPRO and inflect wind fall taxation on our very own oil companies, and that’s ok? I personally think it is against our nation’s best interests and I don’t consider myself a far righter. Nor do I consider myself ideologically driven except for the survival of my country.
Anyone looking at the world today has to think it’s nuts to have oil in various forms and ignore it, while begging others to fuel the bridge that will be necessary for the next 25 years while other fuels and methods are invented.
The fact is that the Dems are so in the pockets of the greenies they would rather lose the country then an election.
There are many reasoned Republicans, why does MSM put the shrill voices on TV? Answer, to give the public the impression that a few speak for the whole. The nuts on the left are protected by MSM. Milkin et al don’t speak for most.
I follow the oil debate intensely (having worked in the industry) and I’m not so sure this “compromise” is a smart move. In fact, I’m sure that it isn’t. If you saw the transcript of Pelosi’s radio address today, she has a laundry list of demands in order to consider drilling. One of these is the so-called “use it or lose it” lease takeback the dems have been pushing. Not only is that strictly unconstitutional (not even the government can unilaterally rescind a contract without paying compensation) but it is also an absolute deal killer for any bill it is attached to.
The problem with the “gang of 10” is that their opening position already includes all the important concessions that are reasonable. They’ve left themselves no room to negotiate; in order to get a deal they will be under pressure to agree to some of the deal killing measures Pelosi is pushing. She, of course, is pushing them because she knows they are deal killers and she wants this bill to die, but she wants to make Republicans kill it.
You can’t negotiate with someone who’s goal is simply to destroy any chance of progress, and that is Pelosi’s clear goal now. (You don’t think she actually wants to drill, do you? She just wants to find a way not to drill but make voters blame someone else) Since this attempt at compromise plays into Pelosi’s blame shifting game, I think it makes the eventual agreement on offshore drilling far LESS likely than it would be in a hardline approach. For instance, doing away with offshore royalty relief (another of Pelosi’s demands) changes the economic calculation and makes much offshore drilling uneconomic even at these price levels. She knows that, of course, which is why she is demanding it. (the economics of offshore drilling would take a great deal of explanation, more than is appropriate for a post like this. The democrats entire list of demands depend on most people not being aware of how this works. They count on people thinking you just stick a pipe in the ground and free money comes out. )
if you give away the store right from the start, there is no way a good result can come out. This “compromise” is actually a pre-emptive capitulation, an unforced error. It is a grave mistake on the one issue that Republicans have a clear advantage on. They *Should* be demanding drilling in ANWR as well, not just offshore. Mix that in with alternative energy, and you have the seeds of a real policy. What these 10 senators are proposing is a political show that will hurt more than it will help. (anyone except Democrats up for re-election, that is.)
There is a lesson we should have learned from our dealings with the Taliban – you can’t compromise with ideologues who have no interest in compromising anything. Does this mean I think that Pelosi is morally equivalent to the average Taliban leader? Why yes, I do. Although I respect them a little bit more than I respect her.
I dunno, the Democrats control the Senate and the House and some sort of compromise will probably be necessary to get anything done. Unless the balance of power shifts and I doubt that will happen.
I saw the following over at Instapundit a couple of days ago:
SO THE PHONE RANG JUST A BIT AGO, AND IT WAS SEN. BOB CORKER, calling to talk about the “gang of ten” energy compromise plan. That’s gotten some flak from Republicans, but Corker called to say that it’s unfair. He was fired up — by contrast to his laid-back persona the last time we spoke, during the campaign — and says that in fact, the bill that he’s a co-sponsor of is a better — more pro-drilling and pro-energy — bill than the McConnell bill that garnered 44 Republican votes in the Senate. Here are some of his points:
1. The “gang of 10” bill unilaterally opens up drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, with no state veto. The GOP bill didn’t do that, because Mel Martinez and Charlie Crist didn’t want it. Non-Gulf states Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas can opt-in if they like; the old GOP bill was opt-in everywhere, allowing Florida to block drilling in the Gulf off of its shores.
2. The bill also allows for seismic exploration along the entire continental shelf.
3. The ban on drilling within 50 miles of the coast was also in the GOP bill.
4. Contrary to many commentators’ claims, the “gang of ten” bill is not a lifeline for Obama: “What a bunch of C-R-A-P. ” (Yes, he spelled it out like that) “If Obama embraced this, he would be the biggest flipflopper ever.” A lot of the opposition to the bill is really a case of trying to keep drilling as an election issue instead of getting more drilling.
5. The bill includes a Zubrin-like flex-fuel provision, requiring that 75% of cars by 2015 and 85% by 2020 be capable of running on something besides gasoline.
6. “Our bill also opens up coal-to-liquids. We couldn’t have gotten 44 Republicans for that.”
7. The bill is “incredibly aggressive” on nuclear power, including accelerated-depreciation provisions like those for solar and wind power, more NRC resources to speed licensing, and an end to the Carter-era ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing. “We couldn’t have gotten 44 Republicans on this.”
8. The bill also promotes cellulosic ethanol.
*******
I think this is a good issue for Republicans, the only way I can see it backfiring is if the Democrats appear ready to do business and it looks like the Republicans are stiff arming them in an attempt to keep the issue around for political purposes.
WWS:
There is the problem right there, the way you characterize the plan and the way Corker does, it sounds as if they are not even the same plan. The American people don’t know who to believe.
“Ask GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer what he thinks of the recent “Gang of 10” Senate energy compromise, and his answer is short and not sweet: “I’d call it 40% tax increase, 10% energy and 50% snake oil.””
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121875756040342661.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
I will add that the plan *might* be acceptable if it could be passed as is, with no further revisions. But Pelosi and Reid will guarantee that cannot happen, with the result that no bill will pass and Republicans will share the blame for the failure, insulating the Dems from responsibility for the debacle.
Tactically, this is very foolish.
The whole argument is B.S. and the five Republicans have sold out to gain some percieved advantage for themselves.
The idea that the federal Government can dictate to what extent the states and private enterprise can come together in commerce is unconstitutional.
The federal Government has been allowed to way over step its’ bounds vs states rights and the assault continues unabated and spills over into individuals rights. Smoking bans, public dominion over private property are examples of a government gone wild with seemingly no-one willing to reign it in.
Beyond basic public health, pollution concerns the feds should have no say in what Alaska or any other state does with its natural resources. If the free market were free of government meddling we would have plenty of cheap gas and oil and a much richer less dependent nation with a far better balance of trade and higher dollar valu.
Bill Clinton perpetrated one of the largest land grabs in this nations history putting millions of acres into federal control limiting usage and access and we are paying the price at the pump everyday.
The Democrats with a few clueless Republicans help continue this assault on the constitution and Americas’ freedoms.
I hope at some point the American public awakens enough to take their country back by stopping this assault, unfortunately it may take a 30’s type depression brought on by foolish policies of an out of control Federal Government ,over regulation, and $12.00 a gallon gas for it to happen.
Terrye did a great job of showing why this is a great starting point to begin debating. Those of you who sneered at this did a good job of showing why the GOP is so despised and unworthy of being elected.
Stop looking down your noises folks. Trust me, you are not on the high ground or the respectable ground or the admired ground.
We call it the fringe for a reason.
It may surprise some of you who have read my other comments, but I’m not against off-shore drilling. (I’ve actually worked in a refinery before, and my father spent his entire life in an oil-related union, so you could almost say I was raised on oil money.) If it can be done in an environmentally-safe way, have at it.
But that doesn’t stop the fact that new off-shore drilling will not do one single solitary thing about gas prices right now. Or in 5 years. Or probably in 10 years. I know you all had fun with the “inflate your tires” thing, but that was an actual example of something that can save you money right now – which new drilling cannot.
And what about the fact that there are currently plenty of drilling leases, and they aren’t doing anything about the price of gas now?
“First, the oil companies in this country now hold 7,000 leases to drill offshore, yet only 20 percent of those leases are producing oil. That is 68 million acres for which they already have the rights to drill. Nearly 80 percent of our offshore oil is already available for leasing — approximately 54 billion barrels total. They could be drilling in these areas, but they are not.”
There needs to be a comprehensive plan in this country to reduce our dependence on oil – not just foreign oil, all oil. To deny that is so, is pure madness.
I don’t think its fringe to ask our elected reperesenttatives to abide by the constitution in fact I believe they all take an oath to do so and then most promptly break that oath.
If, in fact upholding the Constitution of the United States is the GOP’s problem with being “so despised” and “not worthy of being elected” then I fear for my country, and the high prices, attendant depression and political mayhem that must follow. Although these effects may be necessary to preceed the only hope that this country can reform its Governments overeaching ways and remain the great beacon of freedom, truth and prosperity it has been.
I don’t know what is best to do really. I am for wide open drilling. Too many unstable countries have too much control of the oil market.
I was just passing along Corker’s remarks. He and Thune are not necessarily sell outs. They might really think this deal is the best they can get.
I do think that if the GOP holds out or stops any compromise, they better have the votes to come up with a better plan.
dhunter:
This does not have anything to do with the Constitution.
dhunter:
“If, in fact upholding the Constitution of the United States is the GOP’s problem with being “so despised†and “not worthy of being elected†then I fear for my country, and the high prices, attendant depression and political mayhem that must follow.”
Ummm…. what? I’ve read this sentence five times now, and I don’t have the slightest clue what you are trying to say.
Besides, the GOP and the Bush Administration have proven fairly well over the past 7 years that the Constitution is only something to be followed when it’s convenient. But when times get tough, they’ll just ignore little things like the Fourth Amendment.
Dhunter,
your comments illustrate you don’t have a clue what the Constitution says.
AJStrata
Dear AJ,
I couldn’t agree more. You mentioned the “Gang of 14”. This is my piece published by “The American Thinker” on May 26, 2005:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/the_great_senate_con_job_of_20.html
Of course my prediction was wildly wrong.
Regards,
Roy
Roy,
Clearly you saw what was happening. So much of what happens in DC is choreographed political theatre. But the desire to discuss compromises in order to achieve progress is the real deal. All they worry about is getting the properly sized fig leafs for their more extremist partners who secretly want the compromise too.
Respectfully, AJ I do have a clue and many would say, I included, that the 9th and 10th amendments were specifically addressing the limitation of the Federal Government as relates to personal freedoms and states rights.
Breschau I was addressing AJ’s remarks regarding”so despised” and “not worthy of being elected”, upon rereading I could have probably said it better.
I believe the federal government has overeached in areas of private property and environmental regulation of industry.
Just the fact that anyone here tends to disagree does not make me clueless A.J. it just makes your argument look petty.
I would say the federal government is doing the citizens of Alaska and these United States a great disservice by not allowing Alaskans to drill for oil thus depriving their citizens of much needed income. This may be in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
“Stop looking down your noises folks. Trust me, you are not on the high ground or the respectable ground or the admired ground.”
Maybe I’m being overly sensitive to think you mean this to apply to my arguments, but I wish you would address them directly rather than in a backhanded ad-homineim way.
I honestly think you do not understand the issue very well. You’re usually very good on the technical areas, you should do better on this one.
Do you really believe that is valuable to aspire to the “respectable and admired ground”, even though that ground may be disastrously wrong? Were you on the respectable and admired ground when you claimed that victory in Iraq was achievable in 2006? Let me answer – you were not. But you were still right, and that’s all that mattered. Sometimes the “respectable and admired ground” leads only to disaster. Your own blogging has proved that.
Breschau:But that doesn’t stop the fact that new off-shore drilling will not do one single solitary thing about gas prices right now. Or in 5 years. Or probably in 10 years.
This from the same side whose favorite justification for anything is “for the children”.
Why does it have to have an effect on prices “right now” for it to be good policy? Do you realize how silly that sounds, how infantile your reasoning is, to say we shouldn’t plan to do something because it will have no benefit “right now”? Get this into your head-we DON’T CARE whether it will help gas prices “right now” or not, WE can think beyond next weekend.
As opposed to the libs that are universally loved and worthy of being re-elected?
Both parties have worked hard to acheive their 14% approval rate.